Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by n6vmo, Mar 12, 2015.
sounds like someone pressed the wrong button & it should of been a warning about dangerous flying
1. Don't monitize your video. I am tired of sitting through 5 to 15 seconds of ads because you think you're going to get rich off of your lame drone video(s).
2. Keep your YouTube videos 'unlisted' or 'private'. Just share the link on your forums/blogs/etc.
3. Don't title your videos with any words that advertise it is a drone video.
That FAA letter was sent to one our our own here.
"Don't monetize your videos" is a simplistic, short-sighted "solution" to this problem.
Under this thinking, Lady Gaga should not be able to sell her albums. She uses an illegal substance to inspire her musically.
It was only a letter and it was only a notice with a request not to do it again.
The letter was sent by a field inspector who had not consulted his superiors.
Even though I have an account on youtube, my profile stuff is all fake.
I never use my real home address on those sites. Purely to keep the idiots away.
Never link to your website where your personal imformation is in the domain registration.
Then you can always write something like
"Not my video. I do not own a drone. I posted the video on behalf of a friend who does own a drone."
Innocent until proven guilty.
They have the burden of proof.
Even private pilots can receive "compensation".
"Exceptions" that allow pilots to fly for compensation without holding a commercial operator certificate,include certain air tours, flight instruction, aerial survey work, and others listed under Part 119.1. There's also "foreign operations" covered by 14 CFR Part 375 and sharing the pro rata costs of a flight with passengers.
There's also a 1st amendment issue. It's becoming well established that that Internet news outlets - i.e., YouTube - should be treated like print media and be afforded the same rights long-recognized for traditional print, radio, and television journalists. (Check out CFAPA.ORG if you want press credentials.)
I'd like to see the person who wrote that letter (because a video was posted on YouTube) try to enforce it.
I'm shaking in my boots. :lol:
I guess the FAA has finally caught up on processing and approving those hundreds of 333 exemptions they have been years behind on that they have so much free time to eat Doritos and surf YouTube.
Just for the sake of accuracy, the FAA only started approving Section 333 waivers in the fall of 2014. Complaining about enforcement actions is like the guy who is getting a traffic ticket and lambasts the cop for not trying to catch the "real" criminals.
When it comes to drones right now you pays your money and you takes your chances. Most won't get caught, but some will, and it will suck for them.
"It's worth mentioning that the FAA's drone enforcement strategy is a bit of a mess."
That's an understatement! :lol:
Yeah I know it just seems like years for those that submitted
Just another in a long list of pointless pronouncements by the FAA showing how out of touch with reality they are.
It's such a stretch to determine that anyone can fly and photograph quite legally but that if they sell the photos, that some how is illegal. This has zero to do with aviation safety and even less to do with common sense. How can it be legal to take photos but illegal to sell them? How can what determines if a flight was illegal is whether or not you sell the photos and why is the FAA deciding they have the right to restrict trade on this basis?
And once they have reset reality to absorb that insanity, it's only a small step for them to determine that putting a video on youtube constitutes commercial use and thus makes the flying illegal.
If the FAA wanted people respect them, they have to become a bit more relevant and start living in the real world rather than their own FAA bizzarro world. Until then, they can expect people to treat them with the total contempt they deserve - in respect to matters of "commercial use" .
"It's such a stretch to determine that anyone can fly and photograph quite legally but that if they sell the photos, that some how is illegal "
I think the difference is it then becomes a venture (of sorts) so now is independent of the artical, if in fact it is unfair won't change the determinations as it has now moved away from flying the we space ship with pretty lights we like.
It could be wave boarding or blowing bubbles it's still all the same, we can't take this personally against our hobby.
Small minded nit picking pricks come to mind (ooops)
As far as I thought "commercial use" had to have both parties in agreement, basically it's a non enforceable non legal agreement, I could be wrong, this is not an unusual thing.
This was my reply in another thread about this same thing.
Please note the update at the end of the article:
"The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws," the agency said. "The FAA’s guidance calls for inspectors to notify someone with a letter and then follow up. The guidance does not include language about advertising. The FAA will look into the matter."
I do not disagree with any of the posts, but the FAA-speak for commercial use is "holding out".
Advisory Circular AC 120-12A
§4(c) defines how the FAA defines 'holding out':
The FAA rules were originally meant to protect the public from untrained barnstormer pilots that would take you flying for a few dollars. The general public does not know the pilot, how much training he has, how qualified he is to fly, and they depend on the FAA to keep them safe. Which is why a commercial pilots license is required to fly for hire. It's an assurance to the public of a level of training and competency.
Stretching the intent of the commercial license to calling a Youtube video "holding out" is precisely the kind of government overreach that breeds disrespect and disregard.
The FCC found this out when they tried to regulate CB radio in the 1970's. If you monitored 1000 CB conversations, you might find one that is following the rules. He's the newbie. The FCC basically said "f**k it" and walked away from enforcing most the CB operating rules. (They still look for and bust people for using ham gear in the CB bands or illegal amplifiers).
The FAA won't be holding the same Tar Baby as the FCC did because there were tens of millions of CB radios in the '70s and there may only be a few thousand aerial photographers using drones. (The FAA still insists there will only be 7,500 commercial sUAV operators by 2018). :lol: